Waters v Maguire [1999] EWHC 280 (QB) (13 May 1999)

Waters v Maguire [1999] EWHC 280 (QB) (13 May 1999)

The Defendant was not negligent in her conduct of the Plaintiff's case; she exercised reasonable professional judgment in pursuing a victimisation claim rather than direct discrimination, and did not breach any duty by failing to elicit further evidence. Forensic immunity applied to her actions intimately connected with the conduct of the case. The Statement of Claim was properly struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

Citation
[1999] EWHC 280 (QB)
Parties
Plaintiff: Eileen Annette Waters; Defendant: Ms Maguire
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Statement of Claim Under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(d)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forensic Immunity, Barrister's Duty of Care, Victimisation, Direct Discrimination, Industrial Tribunal Procedure
Professional Negligence Employment Law Sex Discrimination Forensic Immunity Barrister's Duty of Care Victimisation Direct Discrimination Industrial Tribunal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eileen Annette Waters

Plaintiff

Ms Maguire

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Statement of Claim Under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(d)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant barrister owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff in the conduct of her case before the Industrial Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was negligent in the conduct of the Plaintiff's case, specifically in failing to pursue a claim of direct discrimination and in not eliciting further gender-specific evidence
  3. 3 Whether forensic immunity applied to the Defendant's actions

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was not negligent in her conduct of the Plaintiff's case; she exercised reasonable professional judgment in pursuing a victimisation claim rather than direct discrimination, and did not breach any duty by failing to elicit further evidence. Forensic immunity applied to her actions intimately connected with the conduct of the case. The Statement of Claim was properly struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Statement of Claim struck out as abuse of process
  • Action dismissed